Buddhism however, despite all attempts by Hindus to denote the Buddha as a God, would not be subsumed into Hinduism.

Are you sure about that? You look at later movements in Indian Buddhists... Mahayana Buddhists worshipped Indian gods and developed practices like mantras, and in Vajrayana, this was even more true, with their elaborate tantric rituals. You could make the argument that Buddhism died out in India through assimilating itself out of existence, through mutual syncretism, where Buddhists adopted "Hindu" practices and Hindus created systems of yoga that resembled Buddhist teachings and disciplines... whereas different forms of Buddhism survived outside of India because of geographic boundaries. Everywhere that ideas exist, there is combination. Perhaps we can say that Buddhism, as saw by the Buddha, was not subsumed, but the superficial, material aspects?

jcsuperstar wrote:are jains against the caste system? where there ever jain kings who replaced hindu kings and got rid of the caste system?

Yes, the Jains are against caste, just like Buddhism. I think there may have been a few Jain kings, but never long enough to get rid of the caste system.

The Jains are also non-theistic like Buddhism. The major differences are on anatta, kamma, and nibbana.

I think Jainism survived because it was more similar to Hinduism and Buddhism survived and expanded in the Mahayana form because this too was more like Hinduism, but then went to Tibet, China, and other parts of Asia.

OK, well I'll rephrase... the Jain I know considers herself Hindu, and another friend who is Hindu (Brahman / Rig Veda) considers Jains to be Hindus too. Neither he, she, nor I, can speak for all Jains. If there's a more mainstream position, would you care to share it?

OK, well I'll rephrase... the Jain I know considers herself Hindu, and another friend who is Hindu (Brahman / Rig Veda) considers Jains to be Hindus too. Neither he, she, nor I, can speak for all Jains. If there's a more mainstream position, would you care to share it?

Metta,Retro.

Well Jainism and Hinduism are too different things. I don't know how else to put it. I guess the comparable thing is that jainism and buddhism are two different things. However, Hinduism often assimilates spiritual traditions. For example, the Buddha is considered by Hinduism to be an incarnation of Krishna, albeit one with relatively little popularity. This doesn't stop your friends from being Hindu-Jains, for sure, just as some people consider themselves Christian Buddhists or Jewish Buddhists. But Hinduism and Jainism - other than for those who practice some sort of syncretism - are worlds apart. The view that Jainism is a subset of Hinduism would be a very small minority.

Hinduism really refers to many religions - it is an umbrella term. I have Indian friends who have expressed surprise when I claimed Jainism was a separate religion. I was told the Jains are a specific caste.

But we all know that Buddhism and Jainism are separate religions with completely different philosophies to 'hinduism' and to each other. This caliming everything is hinduism may be due to the influence of Hindu nationalists in recent years.

I am not sure it would be a good argument that Buddhism upset the status quo by opposing the caste system. From early on in Sri Lanka Buddhism embraced the caste system - of Buddhists did. This possibly occurred in India too because it was so entrenched in the society.

I am not sure of the Jain stance on Caste, but these days they seem to be a caste class themselves.

There is an article available which sounds interesting, but I don't have access:Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1980 "The disappearance of Buddhism and the survival of Jainism: a study in contrast," in edited by A.K. Narain, _Studies in the History of Buddhism_ (Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation,

Bankei wrote:Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India

Just read this:

"Udayana assumed, with the Vaiseshika, that the world was formed by atoms, from which physical bodies also derived. But he was equally concerned with the mind and its right apprehension of objects in nature. His vigorous thinking was set forth in the Nyāya-Kusumānjali and the Bauddhadhikkāra, the latter an attack on the atheistic thesis of Buddhism. Living in a period of lively controversy with the Buddhists, Udayana defended his belief in a personal God by resorting to the two natures of the world: cause and effect. The presence of the world is an effect that cannot be explained by the activity of atoms alone. A supreme being had to cause the effect and regulate the activity of the atoms; hence, according to Udayana, God exists. In a debate with Buddhists in India he was the final victor. After him no Buddhist philosopher undertook again a debate with Nyāya."

There were various reasons, however the biggest one was probably the spread of the 500 year expiration date rumor, the "Dharma declining age" was the main reason. You read the Mahayana Sutras and it's like how do you stop the Dhamma from ending? That fear started the search in Tantra, mantra and you saw the rise of the Mahayana.

The predominance of Mahayana, also proved to be a weakness since Theravada would have monks and nuns who would constantly engage the public during their alms round and speak to them about the Dhamma, whereas the Mahayana monks stopped doing that for some reason even though the Vinaya required it…they sat in their monasteries with very little interaction with the public. This allowed Brahmins to gain public support.

The international status of Buddhism brought about a huge jealousy amongst brahmins that "foreigner" Buddhists such as Hsuan-tsang could defeat the Brahmins in debate. They had fomented an uprising against the king at the time in North India, Harsh Vardhana.

Hinduism came as an Indian nationalist umbrella religion of various non-Buddhist sects who agreed to hold the brahmanical Vedas as supreme and tried to integrate Buddha into Indian religion as a Vishnu Avatar. To this day Hinduism is a nationalist movement.

I have been wondering. Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India while other religions such as Brahmanism or Hinduism or Jainism survive?

Surely the Muslim invasion should have wiped out the other 'idolatrous' religions too.

In the case of Jainism, its survival is largely attributable to its very strict teachings on nyāyopattadhana, the Jain version of right livelihood. Since the Jains held that even unintentional activities generate karma, they sought to avoid not only those modes of livelihood that ineluctably and always cause harm, but also any which might do so only incidentally or occasionally.

From Christopher Capple’s Jainism and Ecology:

livelihood.jpg (175.92 KiB) Viewed 1340 times

Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.

Now in Muslim conquests everywhere, one recurrent feature is that the wealthiest people in the population are not encouraged to convert to Islam, for it’s more profitable to let them keep their own religion and then compel them to pay the infidels’ tax. And so since the richest people in India happened to be the Jains, their conquerors turned a blind eye to their ‘idolatry’ and didn’t go out of their way to make Muslims of them.

I have been wondering. Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India while other religions such as Brahmanism or Hinduism or Jainism survive?

Surely the Muslim invasion should have wiped out the other 'idolatrous' religions too.

In the case of Jainism, its survival is largely attributable to its very strict teachings on nyāyopattadhana, the Jain version of right livelihood. Since the Jains held that even unintentional activities generate karma, they sought to avoid not only those modes of livelihood that ineluctably and always cause harm, but also any which might do so only incidentally or occasionally.

From Christopher Capple’s Jainism and Ecology:

livelihood.jpg

Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.

Now in Muslim conquests everywhere, one recurrent feature is that the wealthiest people in the population are not encouraged to convert to Islam, for it’s more profitable to let them keep their own religion and then compel them to pay the infidels’ tax. And so since the richest people in India happened to be the Jains, their conquerors turned a blind eye to their ‘idolatry’ and didn’t go out of their way to make Muslims of them.

In addition it got around the problem of money lending / and borrowing for interest.

The rules lie in the principles of Islam's shariah law, taken from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, (the way) referring to the way in which the prophet Muhammad lived his life.

Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself has no intrinsic value, it is simply a medium of exchange. Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed to benefit from lending money or receiving money from someone

Dhammanando wrote:Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.

Hi Bhante,

I have noticed that too. Many are very wealthy. How do they reconcile that with the Jain precept of Aparigraha (non-possessiveness) ? It is sort of like the Buddhist teachings against attachment but appears to take it much further with their ascetics not even owning clothes. How then can (some) Jain lay people have such high levels of wealth?

Bankei wrote:Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India

Just read this:

"Udayana assumed, with the Vaiseshika, that the world was formed by atoms, from which physical bodies also derived. But he was equally concerned with the mind and its right apprehension of objects in nature. His vigorous thinking was set forth in the Nyāya-Kusumānjali and the Bauddhadhikkāra, the latter an attack on the atheistic thesis of Buddhism. Living in a period of lively controversy with the Buddhists, Udayana defended his belief in a personal God by resorting to the two natures of the world: cause and effect. The presence of the world is an effect that cannot be explained by the activity of atoms alone. A supreme being had to cause the effect and regulate the activity of the atoms; hence, according to Udayana, God exists. In a debate with Buddhists in India he was the final victor. After him no Buddhist philosopher undertook again a debate with Nyāya."

"...from the 10th century the struggle for existence of the Buddhists in India due to Muslim aggression over the Buddhist education centres was the main cause of unproductiveness of a brilliant philosophical literature for them. But the gradual fall of Buddhism in India was noticed much before.

Dr. Stcherbatsky writes, 'Notwithsanding the great scope and and success of his propaganda he(Dharmakirti) could only retard, but not stop the process of decay which befell Buddhism on its native soil. Buddhism in India was doomed. The most talented propagandist could not change the run of history.

The time of Kumarila and Sankaracarya, the great champions of Brahmanical revival and opponents of Buddhism, was approaching. Tradition represents Dharmakirti as having combated them in public disputations and having been victorious. But this is only an afterthought and a pious desire on the part of his followers. At the same time it is an indirect confession that these great Brahmin teachers had met with no Dharmakirti to oppose them.'

"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "--------------------------------------------"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation, Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "

David N. Snyder wrote:Many are very wealthy. How do they reconcile that with the Jain precept of Aparigraha (non-possessiveness) ?

I think the typical lay Jain doesn't entertain any serious expectations of becoming a kevalin/arhat in the present life and so is little concerned with developing aparigraha or the other characteristic qualities valued in Jain ascesis (with the exception of ahiṃsā, which is a major concern for layman and renunciate alike). Like many a lay Buddhist, the Jain layman’s chief activity is providing material support to his religion’s ascetic virtuosos, thereby acquiring merit and participating vicariously in the ascetics' successes, with his own success being postponed to some future life. For someone with such an outlook getting rich wouldn't be perceived as a problem and might even be regarded as a benefit in that a rich man can offer more bountiful support than a poor man.